Talk:Lami
Is it likely the possible D. in her name saved in her in the fire? Yes, it is entirely possible. But nothing is confirmed yet. There's a small debate about it in the archive. 02:56, August 2, 2015 (UTC) I was just thinking, D might be speculative, but why would Trafalgar be too? They're family, and it's far more speculative to argue that she might be adopted, so at the very least we could move it to Trafalgar Lami. 19:58, October 26, 2015 (UTC) Well, they could be adoptive siblings, as with Luffy and Ace. After all, Law's hair is black, Lami's is brown. 01:41, October 27, 2015 (UTC) Do you really want to argue that? Viola's hair is black (like her father's) and Scarlett's is red. Is Scarlett, the at the time heir to the Dressrosa throne, adopted? 03:58, October 27, 2015 (UTC) Oda is not consistent with genes folks, so it's not really important because this is a fantasy manga, not a science textbook Joekido (talk) 04:03, October 27, 2015 (UTC) On a more important note, why aren't her infobox images showing up? I know I moved them correctly. 04:05, October 27, 2015 (UTC) Okay, never mind hair color. If we do this, then we'd have to do Riku Viola and Riku Scarlett. If no reliable source says so, then we don't go for it. After all, why do you think we don't add the kanji/romaji for Nui Nui no Mi? 04:33, October 27, 2015 (UTC) Trafalgar Again Can we not move pages without discussion please? We already had a discussion about this issue before and the majority decision was to keep it as just "Lami". We an issue is decided via discussion, it's very important to make changes to that issue with additional discussion. We do not have a confirmation of anyone else in the family using the Trafalgar name besides Law himself. If we knew of at least one other person, I would say it's safe, but for now I do not believe there is enough evidence for us to assume we know Law's family's naming conventions. 15:08, October 27, 2015 (UTC) Who moved it? Just move it back until they bother to raise a discussion. Then it can be discussed again, and inevitably left to die. 15:11, October 27, 2015 (UTC) I totally agree, otherwise we'd be saying "Riku Viola" and "Riku Scarlett". 15:20, October 27, 2015 (UTC) Sorry, I agree with DP. She is his sister, so she must have his family name. Oda won't give us everything. We have brains, we can think common stuff like this. Don't turn this into a monet is alive. 15:28, October 27, 2015 (UTC) Agrees with Staw and DP on Trafalgar Lami. 15:39, October 27, 2015 (UTC) I don't really see how keeping it this way inhibits progress, as Lami only appeared in one chapter and will likely never be seen again. If Law's family is ever mentioned as the "Trafalgar Family" then I'd support moving like we did with Rocinante, although it's not really important right now at all. 15:51, October 27, 2015 (UTC) Agreed with JSD and Kaido, keep it as Lami for now. Feels a bit unprofessional to rename it, especially with that whole D. thing still in limbo. 15:56, October 27, 2015 (UTC) Just keep it as Lami. 16:34, October 27, 2015 (UTC) I'd vote to give her the Trafalgar name. I think it's pretty safe to infer that they're biological siblings, and so far every biological family member has had the same surname. 20:37, October 27, 2015 (UTC) Just keep it Lami. We'll get confirmation in a databook. 20:44, October 27, 2015 (UTC) Keep as Lami 21:42, October 27, 2015 (UTC) Lami 4 lyfe - unless "Torafaruga Rami" appears in some chapter or databook in the future.--Xilinoc (talk) 03:41, October 28, 2015 (UTC) Ugh, I'll say make it Trafalgar Lami but my words on this matter fall on deaf ears Joekido (talk) 04:13, October 28, 2015 (UTC) Do the Donquixotes have no relevance here? We know that siblings share last names because of DONQUIXOTE Doflamingo and DONQUIXOTE Rosinante. They're brothers, remember? Any further denial is nothing but stubbornness. What more could you possibly want? Am I seriously the only one who caught that? The D we can leave out, but we know for a fact she's Trafalgar Lamy now, because, surprise, FAMILIAL SIBLINGS SHARE THE SAME LAST NAME. We now have four examples of families exhibiting the apparently strange phenomenon of sharing a last name. We got the Monkeys, the Nicos, the Donquixotes, the Nefertaris, and even the whole Portgas/Gol thing Ace did if you want to get technical. So why are we arguing over something that should've been obvious from the beginning? Are people still afraid of getting burned because it turned out that Ace and Luffy weren't blood brothers? What further proof do you want? 06:14, October 28, 2015 (UTC) I want proof that literally anyone in Law's family shares the Trafalgar name. 15:50, October 28, 2015 (UTC) Since their mother was never actually named, as far as I know, I guess there's no "evidence" of Trafalgar being a surname. But since they still pretty much treat "Trafalgar" like they do "Monkey", by treating it as a surname, that probably means that it is. 16:34, October 28, 2015 (UTC) If you want that, then we may as well call the validity of Marshall and Jaguar into question. Emporio too while we're at it. Law broke his name down. Water is the true whatever, D is secret, and didn't mention Trafalgar because it's public freaking knowledge. Why would his parents give him a different last name than the rest of them? Think about what you're saying and you'll realize how nonsensical it sounds. We know Trafalgar is his last name, and we know kids take on the last names of their parents. You're suggesting we actually make Trafalgar an epithet like we do with "Surgeon of Death", because if there's no proof for the rest of the family, how do we know Law's telling the truth? You're indirectly calling indisputable factual evidence into question. Do you see the dark path your logic is heading down? Why would we doubt that Trafalgar is his last name? If you can't think of an answer for that, then move Lami. 05:30, October 29, 2015 (UTC) I used to think Monkey was Ace's birth surname, turns out we were WAY wrong: it was Gol. And non-canon though it may be, Panz Fry (father) and Lily Enstomach (daughter) differ in their names — designed by Oda, this still serves as my way of expressing how we should not use assumptions to name our pages. If we can assume the possibility of Lami's surname is Trafalgar based on her brother's, then by the same logic, we can assume she was adopted and has a different surname (if not none at all). We don't have enough evidence on either side, so I say leave it as it is until/unless we get something more concrete. 05:45, October 29, 2015 (UTC) No one said her name was Trafalgar Lami, so we cannot call her Trafalgar Lami. That's it. --Klobis (talk) 01:18, October 30, 2015 (UTC) My count is 9-4 for Lami, so I'm gonna call this a clear majority. 05:27, October 30, 2015 (UTC) Trafalgar Once More Given the recent deluge of Charlottes in the last few chapters, we have a better understanding of how family names work. With that said, I'm moving that we move this article to "Trafalgar Lami" once more. We know they're siblings, we know families share the same name, as we've seen with the Charlotte kids. There's a rather supported suggestion to move Mont-D'Or to "Charlotte Mont-D'Or due to the fact that he was called brother by a Charlotte. That should more than justify us treating Lami the same and adding Trafalgar where it should rightly go. To be clear, I am NOT suggesting we add the D, since we are still unclear on how that works. This is only for adding Trafalgar. Now that we have a better understanding of how names work, we can move and act accordingly. 18:54, June 23, 2016 (UTC) Considering recent developments, I agree. It's gonna be a pain if we have to wait for those introduction boxes or databooks every time a member of a family is introduced. Law's surname is Trafalgar, Lami is his sister > Lami's surname is Trafalgar. And yeah, let's hold out on the D thing, that one's a bit more complicated. 19:01, June 23, 2016 (UTC) Here's another vote for move. I agree with everything said here. 19:05, June 23, 2016 (UTC) Rename to Trafalgar Lami. Ridiculous to think that Lami is Law's sister but doesn't have his family name. 19:14, June 23, 2016 (UTC) I may stick out like a sore thumb, but I disagree, since for all we know, they could be adopted or whatnot. Like we assumed Ace's birth family name, and what do you know, it turns out to be Gol D. Ace! 19:28, June 23, 2016 (UTC) I knew someone would call it out on a special case. Roger was never married and Ace changed his name himself. We can't assume adoption for everyone because of one special case. 19:38, June 23, 2016 (UTC) I don't see how Ace case is relevant in this case tbh... he was born as Gol D. Ace and then changed it to Portuguese D. after her mother. Still proves that the surname is hereditary and even in the worst case it's an exception to the rule. I don't see why we should be so cautions without any real reason. We make a lot of assumptions in different matters, this will be just one of them. Also, if we move it, just add a note to explain why she is a "trafalgar". I don't particularly see a reason to add surnames to characters that haven't been given them. Sure, they may be part of the same family, but Oda calls them what he does. It seems kind of pretentious to call them something other than what Oda did based on an assumption of how families should work. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 21:05, June 23, 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict) I meant we once thought he was the first son of Dragon, and hence he abandoned the name Monkey. Yet it is Gol. 21:06, June 23, 2016 (UTC) I should point out that back then, people commonly believed that the D. was what denoted family ties. 21:35, June 23, 2016 (UTC) Lami is no longer relevant to the story. She's not Sabo. She's dead and she served her purpose. There is no more story about her. Why, in a million years, would she be adopted and not carrying her foster parent's name, and then Oda just decided not to mention it? 23:35, June 23, 2016 (UTC) Either way, we should wait for another flashback, SBS, databook entry, or interview. Without proper confirmation, this wiki would fall apart with speculations and fanon (no offense). 23:48, June 23, 2016 (UTC) Yeah, she is minor, so why is her last name anything to be preoccupied with? We are not a genealogy website, we are a wiki that records information that is straightly given to us, and we should only form conclusions from indirect evidence when it's crucial. A character that appeared in one chapter is not crucial. She was directly portrayed as simply Lami, just like Rebecca and Viola were simply given those single names despite being part of a family with a surname. It's not wise to think that we are smarter than the author and the viewpoints he chooses to portray, a point which is often brought up in death discussions, and it should be just as valid here. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 00:00, June 24, 2016 (UTC) Yeah wait until it actually happens. Otherwise we'll also have false Japanese inside the infobox. SeaTerror (talk) 00:46, June 24, 2016 (UTC) We just won't put the Japanese in the infobox then. The infobox will stay just Lami. 03:36, June 24, 2016 (UTC) If we add a note like "she is a trafalgar because she is law' sister" the reader will decide whatever that's a valid deduction or not. It's not like the only deduction wer are making after all... That's not possible since infoboxes are automated. SeaTerror (talk) 16:35, June 24, 2016 (UTC) I meant the Japanese part, not the title, ST. 18:50, June 24, 2016 (UTC) And I was talking about adding a note in the introduction text like we usually do :D Everything in an infobox is automated, DP. SeaTerror (talk) 00:04, June 25, 2016 (UTC) Not the part we're talking about, so don't worry about it. 00:09, June 25, 2016 (UTC) I'm still against adding "Trafalgar" until we get an in-series mention of her name written that way because for all we know, she's just meant to be "Lami" in the same vein as Rebecca, Viola, and Scarlett. I don't like making assumptions about what may or may not be part of a name or how that name would be arranged.--Xilinoc (talk) 01:01, June 25, 2016 (UTC) As with Mont d'Or, we don't add the family name if there is no concrete saying the name. Like we didn't add Donquixote to Rosinante's name until we saw it on the papers in Sengoku's desk drawer. 03:55, June 25, 2016 (UTC) let me get this straight even tho law said its a family name she is his sister they have same parents we still cant add trafgar water or d part to her name just because know one wants the hassle of turning her name back or into something else if oda decicdes bring her back into story for something ( even though chance are low as heck because she is clealry dead)? so those this rule go for every family in the series if Jaguar D. Saul(who said every one in his family had this in there name) brother or some crap do we have to wait until a character box says d in there name or how about some how luffy has a kid mother doesnt have last name or anything like that those this mean we cant add the d to kid name or the monkey part? or how about this a married couple is introduced in series same last name both ds the works and there kid is introduced just first name are we really going say it be speculations to think the kid has his parents last name?06:52, September 29, 2019 (UTC)